Paul McCartney biography by Philip Norman due in May

I didn't even think that was odd, though not for Peter Cox's reasoning (that he thought Paul didn't give Linda money). It's just a given that once you get to the level of wealth the McCartneys were at, concerns like petty cash fall by the wayside. You become used to not paying your own bills (since those are handled by your accountant/business manager) and having assistants take care of details, so many wealthy people and celebrities don't carry cash. With Linda, although she wasn't an heiress, she did grow up wealthy, so she never had the money concerns that someone like Paul would have. I've also seen plenty of friends comment on how Linda could be a bit flighty with practical details about things, so her not having cash on her (or forgetting to bring cash) fits with what I've read of her personality.

I remember an anecdote by someone (Hunter Davies maybe?) about being at a restaurant with the Beatles, eating a feast, then realizing that absolutely no one in their party had cash when it came time to pay the bill. Like the royal family, the Beatles had gotten used to never carrying their own money around. (George eventually realized he had a ridiculous amount of money hidden in his shoe).

I think the main reason Paul was listless in the 80's was the lack of touring and direct feedback from the audience. I think that was due to a combination of factors, including safety concerns after John's death, Linda's reluctance to tour that decade, children at the young/tween/teen ages where they really needed a stable school and environments, and eldest daughter Heather's mental problems (hospitalized twice that decade).

 

Throughout most of You Never Give Me Your Money Doggett refers to Ringo as "Starkey"- it gets almost as annoying as his constantly reminding the reader about "Starkey"'s booze and nose candy problems in the seventies...to be fair that is probably my only complaint about that book, though.

"Good morning, Rich!" before they play the little piano duet ditty.

McCartney has been playing that game for decades now, particularly when it comes to "manipulating" interviewers.
"He's a good PR man, Paul is, I mean he really does a job!" - John Lennon

 

Maybe I misread up post, but I took it that the insertion in the Linda and money thing, was a backhanded way to suggest Macca was controlling of Linda's finances. If the real point of the anecdote was to suggest Linda was too flighty and removed to think about carrying any cash on her, well that's a different point. On the other hand, I think Norman is not going to go down historically as much of a chroniclor and thinker of The Beatles and their milieu - either on a personal, musical or cultural level. His contributions would be great on a forum like this, but his critical thinking faculties seem a bit myopic and doe eyed otherwise. Some of this stuff sounds like celebrity tattle tales. Lewisohn is right to point out the difference between historical research and opinion, but I guess these guys are kinda inner circle people so what would I know

 

He can't win, really. If he snubbed a critic he'd be accused of being an arrogant and aloof egomaniac. If he treated the critic nicely without any bitterness, he's branded a devious PR manipulator.

 

It is also worth pointing out that John was also a very good PR man, just in a very different way. He admitted to going around saying whatever he wanted to say in the 70's, and that much of it had been made up simply because he enjoyed lying to the press.

John spoke in such a way that it is easy to believe him when you hear him speak; he could speak with conviction even if he was lying and/or simply incorrect in his recollections.

 

Not only that but Paul has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he can be a terrible PR man at times. John only made that "he's a good PR man" line because he knew it would hurt in the authenticity vs sellout bullsh-t that dominated the music press of the 70s era.

 

If his portrayal of George in Shout! is anything to go by, he just thought George was a thick, unintelligent simpleton sourpuss who lucked out being in the Beatles

That being said, I'm a couple of chapters in and so far, it's very enjoyable. And no, he hasn't made any comments on Paul being "adorable" or anything like that yet!

 

I'll be very disappointed if there isn't a foreword from @theMess

That boy works so hard for Paul.

 

There's nothing Philip Norman wants to publicize that might be of some real interest.

I'll pass.

 

It's been stated in more than one McCartneybook that this is indeed the case. If asked about it, Paul probably wouldn't deny it, either. He is a master manipulator, he's had six decades at least in which to practice the art, after all.

Lennon was one of those guys who meant exactly what he said when he said it...and could contradict every word an hour later

It is worth noting of course that Lennon made that remark during the 1970 post-Primal Therapy/Beatles Breakup Rolling Stone Interview, where he didn't really have a kind word to say about anybody except himself and Yoko. With the retrospect of the last fourty six years one is well advised to read that interview with a large dose of salt handy.

Christ, did Norman even like The Beatles at all, or did he write Shout! just to be snarky and/or critical?

 

Well, he *did* like John, if Shout! is anything to go by!

He claims to have as been as Beatles-mad as anyone in the 1960s but admits to having an almost weird obsession and personal hurt when they broke up. Honestly, it was a bit creepy the way he described his feelings toward Paul in the wake of the split...like there's a very fine line between how he dealt with it (trashing Paul in print) and what MDC did to John a decade after...

 

Yes, it HAS been stated in more than one McCartney book. Presumably the ones you choose to regard as eminently accurate. My point is: what on earth do you expect a celebrity to do? If they don't just punch the critic and act like Elton John, they're inauthentic? What exactly would you do? Eschew any reaction that might be misconstrued as purely cynical? I don't think anyone would say McCartney isn't very PR savvy, but that's not the same thing as concluding he's a 'master manipulator'. Any sane and intelligent celeb would surely conclude that there's no point in battling against critics because that simply generates more retaliation on their part. Such a person would surely conclude it's more grown-up to rise above it, and that attitude might even make the critic a little more respectful in future. It's lazy and simplistic to depict this as PURELY cynical. Many artists these days just block their critics. McCartney talks to them, listens to them and, yes, charms them - that is not simply cynical. It's part of the man. Lennon charmed plenty of journalists, so did George. Was that mere manipulation? Self-loathing hacks would say so. Some people really cannot accept complexity.

 

Let me explain that better. Norman goes on and on in his foreword about how not only was Paul his favorite Beatle, but how he wanted to *BE* Paul and live Paul's life. And that he felt betrayed first when Paul split up with Jane Asher and took up with Linda, and then how wronged he felt when the Beatles broke up, Paul seemingly at fault (before we all knew the real story). He further goes on how he felt aggrieved and wronged by Paul's lighter-fare material with Wings when compared against his Beatles work (mentioning how he, Norman, felt again betrayed that Paul was wasting his talents), and the final straw was apparently "Mull of Kintyre," which Norman hated (hence that "euology" he wrote about Paul being buried under the road). Basically setting up an excuse for why he trashed Paul at every chance he could get up until the mid-2000s.

I wasn't saying Norman wanted to murder Paul, rather that some of the strange behavior and identification with his "hero," and taking it all a bit too personally, were a bit creepy and that this similar type of behavior came to its ultimate manifestation with MDC.

I hope that makes a bit more sense?

 

Not really.

Better to withdraw it, to be honest.

 

Absolutely. There is a spectrum of fandom. It runs from mild to extreme.

 

I hated "shout", didn't read the Lennon book and the only excerpts from the new Macca book I saw were about the women he shagged. Paul may not be a saint but is a pretty nice human being from what I have read considering his stardom. I don't really know how/why this guy Norman even gets to the level of success. Maybe because because he dissed Paul and the others in the first place - one of the first books to really do it.

 

And from wild to wet dream ...

 

how he wanted to *BE* Paul and live Paul's life...that's creepy enough for me, and even creepier to disclose in a public way..yikes...
And that's why I think he should be posting on the Hoffman Forums instead of writing Semi-sanctioned Beatle books talk about over identification?

 

Oh yes, I think that was Cox's point. It was my point that wearing an expensive watch yet not having a fiver on you is not unusual for the super wealthy.

 

especially when it moves from identifying with the Art, and to a certain extant the cultural surrounds of that, to actually feeling you want your own personal identity subsumed into someone else's reality. To be fair to Norman, he might have been over reaching a bit to convey how important The Beatles were to his life - or Paul in particular. But it's an embarrassment to pen it that way.

 

It's weird that a guy who everyone thought was a Lennon fan boy is now claiming Paul was his favorite.

At any rate, I'll be interested to see how/if the reviews 0f the book address this.

 

Yeah, I thought that was odd, too. He even described how it felt when Paul let him play his Hofner bass backstage at a 1965 UK gig (the only time he ever met the Beatles in person)...I mean, I'm a fanboy, too, but that whole passage was a little...strange.

 

His comment could refer not only to talent but to the personality as well -- the kind of determination and hard works that is often required to "make it."

McCartney seemed to have more of that than Lennon, according to the information that's publicly available -- McCartney going to Lennon's home and waking him up to work on new songs, etc.

 

Also the perfectionism and dedication to craft in the studio...John, by all accounts (including his own) was lazy and had a short attention span, and a low tolerance for frustration. But together, they made it work in spades.